A long-standing proponent of state police has warned that decentralising Nigeria’s policing system without strong constitutional safeguards could give state governors excessive power to intimidate critics, opposition politicians and ordinary citizens.
The position was contained in an opinion piece arguing that while state police could address some of the weaknesses of Nigeria’s centralised policing structure, the proposed system must be designed to prevent political interference and abuse.
The writer recalled publicly advocating state police for years, including in a 2022 article published by The Guardian titled “The Necessity of State Police.”
According to the argument, Nigeria’s current policing structure has become too distant from the communities it is expected to protect, making effective policing increasingly difficult in a country as large and diverse as Nigeria.
The writer maintained that security is fundamentally local, arguing that a police officer familiar with a community’s geography, criminal networks, social relationships and fault lines would be better positioned to protect residents than an officer operating from a centralised system with limited knowledge of the area.
“It has become practically impossible to police a country the size of Nigeria from Abuja,” the writer argued, stressing that the country’s existing federal policing arrangement had failed too many communities for too long.
However, the writer said the strongest argument against an unchecked state police system lies in the possibility that governors could turn such institutions into political weapons.
The concern, according to the writer, is not theoretical, given Nigeria’s history of political interference in security institutions.
The writer cited the alleged abduction and persecution of Cross River-based critic Denis Odama as an example of what can happen when political interests and security institutions become entangled.
Odama’s case, the writer argued, demonstrates how political loyalists can allegedly manipulate the police against citizens who criticise those in power.
The writer questioned what could happen if such powers were formally placed under the control of state governments.
“If desperate political bootlickers can manipulate an institution that is not even under the Governor’s direct command, what happens when the police answer directly to him?” the writer asked.
The concern extends to the appointment and administration of state police commands, particularly where commissioners and other senior officers could perceive their careers, postings and professional survival as dependent on maintaining the confidence of the political establishment.
The writer warned that the consequences could become particularly dangerous for activists, journalists, social commentators and political opponents who demand accountability from state governments.
An activist questioning government expenditure or a social commentator persistently criticising a governor could potentially be treated as a political threat by an administration intolerant of dissent, the writer said.
The danger, it added, could become even more pronounced during elections, when control of a state security apparatus could potentially be used to intimidate opposition supporters, weaken opposition parties and influence the security environment in areas considered hostile to the incumbent.
The writer warned that a police institution established to protect the electoral process could, without adequate safeguards, become an instrument for influencing electoral outcomes.
“This is where affection for state police curdles into something closer to horror,” the writer stated, arguing that a governor hostile to criticism could potentially transform the state police into a “personal cudgel.”
The writer also questioned the response to the Odama controversy, particularly the praise directed at Cross River State Governor Bassey Otu after his intervention in the matter.
According to the writer, celebrating the governor’s eventual intervention without examining how the alleged police action occurred in the first place misses the larger issue.
“If the Governor genuinely knew nothing about it, that should be alarming,” the writer argued, suggesting that it would indicate that individuals close to the administration believed they could deploy state power against a citizen without the governor’s knowledge.
Conversely, if the action was carried out in the governor’s name, the writer said, those responsible would have abused his authority and damaged the credibility of his administration.
The writer therefore argued that, regardless of whether the governor knew about the alleged action, those responsible should have faced immediate consequences.
The controversy, according to the writer, highlights the need for safeguards to be established before state police becomes operational.
The National Assembly was urged to create strong constitutional and legislative protections capable of preventing state governments from taking complete political control of policing institutions.
Among the safeguards proposed are independent oversight mechanisms, appointment procedures insulated from political interference and enforceable protections for citizens, activists and critics who challenge government authorities.
The writer said the central question lawmakers must answer is: “Who polices the police when the police report to the State House?”
While maintaining that state police may ultimately be necessary to improve security and make policing more responsive to local communities, the writer warned that decentralisation without institutional checks could simply transfer the power to intimidate from the federal level to individual state governments.
“State police may be necessary. But without those safeguards, we would not be decentralising security; we would be decentralising the power to intimidate,” the writer said.
The writer concluded that the allegations surrounding the Odama case should serve as a warning to policymakers, stressing that Nigeria should not have to witness another similar case before recognising the dangers of creating state police without adequate democratic and institutional safeguards.